Good University and Excellent Professor: Competing Quality Perspectives in Higher Education

  • Mati HeidmetsEmail author
  • Maiki Udam
  • Kätlin Vanari
  • Birgit Vilgats
Part of the Cultural Psychology of Education book series (CPED, volume 7)


Greater service to society is trending in higher education everywhere in Europe. In the renewal of the European quality agreement, relations with the society- and student-centred teaching have become the subject of focus. Messages coming from the employers and students could be considered somewhat more “weightier”. We can get an idea of the direction where the universities could be heading in the coming decade from the assessment criteria considered important by them. In the context of external evaluation in higher education, the results reported in this chapter could mean greater trust especially in those universities where relations with the world of work (joint study programme development, internship, feedback from the graduates) have become a routine and where the students’ voice is influential inside the university both in assessing the quality of teaching and learning and in the operation of the organisation. As the general trend in external evaluation is to move from the external control (accreditation) increasingly towards supporting and trusting the internal quality system of an educational institution, it could be stated that those universities deserve to be trusted where relations with the world of work are functional and where the student community has become an acknowledged party in the development of the university. External evaluation thus supports the turnaround occurring in higher education in many countries: (re)valuation of teaching along with the universities turning their faces towards the society.


Quality Feedback Assessment Accreditation 


  1. Barnett, R. (2009). Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education, 34(4), 429–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogt, H. J. T., & Scapens, R. W. (2012). Performance management in universities: Effects of the transition to more quantitative measurement systems. Accounting Review, 21(3), 451–497.Google Scholar
  3. Burke, J., & Associates. (2005). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, J. (2005a). The three corners of the accountability triangle. Serving all, submitting to none. In J. Burke & Associates (Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, J. (2005b). The many faces of accountability. In J. Burke & Associates (Eds.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands. San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in crossnational perspective. Berkley: CA, University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Conditions and Procedure for Institutional Accreditation. (2011). Approved by EKKA Higher Education Quality Assessment Council on 01.04.2011. (accessed May 20, 2014).
  8. Current and Future Trends in Higher Education. (2006). A study by HoF Wittenberg commissioned by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education, Science and Culture. HoF Wittenberg, Institut für Hochschulforschung an der Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg.Google Scholar
  9. Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, M. (Eds.). (2010). Higher education dynamics 30. Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. EQUIP. (2016). Comparative analysis of the ESG 2015 and ESG 2005. (Accessed September 2, 2016).
  11. Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020. (2014). Ministry of Education and Research: Tallinn. (Accessed September 5, 2017).
  12. Espenberg, K., Puolokainen, T., & Lees, K. (2013). Õppejõudude ja teadustöötajate töölepingute sõlmimise ja töö kvaliteedi hindamise praktika analüüs. Tartu: TÜ sotsiaalteaduslike rakendusuuringute keskus RAKE.Google Scholar
  13. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Higher Education Area. (2005). The European higher education area: Achieving the goals. Bergen, May 19–20, 2005. Available at: (Accessed July 20, 2016).
  15. European University Association. (2015). Trends. Learning and teaching in European Universities. (accessed September 2, 2016).
  16. Keeley, J., Christopher, A. N., Buskist, W. (2012). Emerging evidence for excellent teaching across borders. In J. E. Groccia, M. T. A. Alsudari, & W. Buskist (Eds.), Handbook of college and university teaching: A global perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Kuther, T. (2002). A profile of ethical professor. Student views. College Teaching, 51(4).Google Scholar
  18. Mägi, E., Kirss, L., Haaristo, H.-S., Nestor, M., & Batueva, V. (2013). Eesti õppejõud 2012. Taust, ajakasutus, töömotivatsioon, õpetamine, teadustöö ja rahulolu. Tallinn: Poliitikauuringute Keskus Praxis.Google Scholar
  19. Nichols, J. (2012) The science professor as pastor? Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, ASA, 4.Google Scholar
  20. Peterson, R., Berenson, M., & Aijaz, R. (2011). An exploratory study: Is there anything good about rate my professor? In Proceedings of Northeast Decision Sciences Institute, April, 1178–2001.Google Scholar
  21. Pitt, R., & Mewburn, I. (2016). Academic superheroes? A critical analysis of a academic job descriptions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 38(1), 88–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, G., & Anderson, K. (2005). Students’ ratings of professors: The teaching style contingency for Latino/a professors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 4(2), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Townley, B. (1999). Practical reason and performance appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Udam, M. (2013). Meeting state, market and academic concerns: Challenge for external quality assurance of higher education institutions. Estonian case. Doctoral dissertation. Tallinn: Tallinna Ülikool.Google Scholar
  25. Udam, M., & Heidmets, M. (2013). Conflicting views on quality: Interpretations of ‘a good university’ by representatives of the state, the market and academia. Quality in Higher Education, 19(2), 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Udam, M., Lauri, L., & Bach, T. (2014). Understanding the stakeholders’ perspective on the use and usefulness of external quality assurance reports. In T. Bach, D. Dragojevic, P. Findlay, S. Hering, L. Lauri, O. Lynch, Z. Olcen, & M. Udam (Eds.), Transparency of European higher education through public quality assurance reports (EQArep) (pp. 10–25). Brussels, Belgium: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  27. University Reform, Time to Leave the Ivory Tower. (2015). A raft of new measures aims to make universities focus more on teaching. The Economist, November 14, 2015.
  28. University Teacher Competency Model Version 2. (2011). Tartu: SA Archimedes. (accessed May 20, 2014).
  29. Young, D. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mati Heidmets
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maiki Udam
    • 1
  • Kätlin Vanari
    • 1
  • Birgit Vilgats
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Educational SciencesTallinn UniversityTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations